Bill O’Reilly’s No Spin News and Analysis - No Spin News - Weekend Edition - February 28, 2026

Episode Date: February 28, 2026

Listen to this week's No Spin News interviews. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Welcome to the No Spin News Weekend Edition. All right, I wrote a message of the day. It's on bill o'Reilly.com. It's about nationalism. And there is a good part of nationalism and a bad part. And the final point I want to make before we get to our guest, Stephen A. Smith, is that you are looking at a situation that is, you are looking at a situation that is. far more important than a sport. So our country, I don't know if it's ever going to come together again. I don't, not in my lifetime, I don't think it will. I think this division is there to stay

between the red states and the blue states and the women's team and the men's team. And under a constitution, perfectly, you know, there's no demand that were in lock step. But it makes me sad. It does. And that's a memo. All right, joining us from Miami, where he's hiding out from the snow, is Stephen A. Smith, who is the premier sportscaster in America, whether you like him or not, he is.

And he's the author of Straight Shooter, a Memoir of Second Chances or First Takes, that's still in circulation, his book. Where am I going wrong here, Stephen? Well, I would say to you, let me first applaud you on where I think you're going right. I do believe that, you know, I don't have any problem whatsoever with the FBI director being in the locker room celebrating with Team USA. He's the FBI, United States of America. His rooting interests clearly is undeniable. And we've seen plenty of elected officials at sporting events, rooting on.

team USA. What's wrong with him being there? I see no issue with that whatsoever. And even though I have a great relationship and I love me some Whoopi Goldberg, she's a friend I've known her for many, many years. And I respect those on the view, even though we may disagree from time to time. I just think that they were off with what they were complaining about when it came to Cash Patel, being there, being present, et cetera, et cetera. Where I would disagree with you is when you talk about Disney because I would remind you, Bill O'Reilly, I've been working for ESPN for 20 years. I work for Disney and they certainly don't control what I say and I certainly have opinions that are far different from them. So I would say to you specify the view as opposed to specify

Disney because I work for it too and they don't have any influence over what I say. Let me rebut because I didn't know you were going to bring this up and it's an interesting topic. Sure. Disney puts on a propaganda show every day, a left-wing propaganda show every day, a left-wing propaganda show every day. You don't do that. You do sports. ESPN does sports.

Now, in the globe of sports, you got a lot of many opinions. Get Steve Kerr out in the Gold and say Warren. Great Popovich. But you got conservative guys, you got that. But Disney, under the banner of news,

which of course it isn't, the view is not news, all right? throws a left-wing propaganda show on that does not book one conservative guest the whole year of 2025. You think that's okay? I don't think it's okay. I don't think they think it's okay. And I think that's why they've made efforts to correct it.

Now, you might have. What efforts? What effort? I'm just saying you've seen conservatives coming on. I didn't know I was here to talk about that, but I won't run from it. I will tell you that I think you've seen that they know that it's a problem that needed to be addressed. And as a result, it's in the process of being addressed because I think you see more

conservatives coming on that show. Now, you've been, you've been on the show in the past, well, Marjorie Taylor Green was one of them. I forgot who else was up there. The only reason she was on there was to bash Trump. She could never get on there until she started to bash Trump. Then they want to. Well, but then you also have, well, they would tell you, they, I don't know this, because I'm not a part of that show, but they would tell you that Republicans have been invited, and they've been reluctant to come home. That's what they would say. That's what they would say. I don't know that to be true. Bill and neither do you. You stop. You don't know that to be true.

Yeah, I do. I know. I know it to be true. On many occasions, they don't turn me down. You know, I'm out of fact, more liberals than Republicans turn me down. More liberals than Republicans turn me down. So, I mean, I get where you're coming from. It's a propaganda thing that's shoved down the throat, and it's okay if they would have a counter to it, but they don't.

Okay, that's fine, and I can agree with that. But isn't it true bill? And you would know this better than me because of the year, the decades, you've been in television. You see it everywhere now. Like whether CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, everybody has their own arm. Everybody has their own tilt.

We've seen that before. We've been seeing it a lot. So we can't deny it's not about one show. It's not even about one entity. It's about the business itself, which is something that we've lamented. One of the things that I've said, and I've said this publicly,

so I can say it to you again, about late night. Late night's got an issue. Do you know what would have resolved the issue from day one? You're comedians. What's the number one things comedians say? Nobody is safe. Everybody is open to be parodied, ridiculed, et cetera, et cetera. And there seemed to be this concerted effort aimed at one individual who happens to be our president who's in his second term,

more considerably, excessively more than anybody else. Had they went after everybody, we went to have these problems. And they ruined themselves. We wouldn't have these problems. They ruined themselves. So I agree with you there. So did SNL. All right, let's get to the women's men's thing.

Sure. So there's a different culture, I believe, in the locker rooms of both. Would I be wrong in saying that? Yeah, but maybe not for the reasons you're thinking. I think that a lot of times with the guys, for example, you're going out there and you're fixated on your performance, but you're not necessarily as connected to the issue. in an intimate and more emotional manner

than some of the ladies are. And the ladies are smart as a whip. They pay attention to a lot of the issues. They're mindful, they're cognizant, and most importantly, they seem to be a bit more unafraid to speak out about various issues. Well, like you brought up in your monologue, when you talked about immigration.

It could be immigration. It could be the state of our country. Wouldn't it have been better, though, for the coach of the world, women's team just to say I'm letting the ladies decide for themselves rather than issue with statement but but we don't know that that that's not no no they they issued a statement the women's hockey team said we're not showing up for the state of the union even though we're invited by the president yeah but what i'm saying to you is that the coach wasn't

speaking for them i mean they let it be known that's how they feel collectively well okay but they don't run the asylum all the coach had to do is say if there are any dissenters who would like to go to the state of the union, you're free to go. But they wanted to embarrass Trump. That's what they wanted to do. No, no, no, no, no. I disagree with you that.

It's not about wanting to embarrass him. It's about emphatically disagreeing with them and letting it be known. That's how they want to get him. Well, listen, here's about. You think everybody on that women's team disagrees with Trump? You don't think he's one person who likes the president?

I think it's a, listen, I think it's entirely possible. that collectively speaking, a lot of them, if not all of them, don't like him. But you're missing the point why, and I'm going to get at you about this Bill O'Reilly. Again, policy aside, how many times have you and I go back and forth about the optics and how things are done? Everybody's not in the weeds the way that you are. Look at the details that you provided. Look at when you were talking about Cash Mattel.

You literally gave us information about what he was there for, what his work entailed prior to the celebration upon Team USA winning the gold medal. You'd be surprised, you know how many people didn't know that, but they come to the no-spin zone and then they find it out. There's a lot of things that you know. The fact that the matter is, is that far more often than not, people are not going by that. They're going about how things look.

They're going about, they're catching stuff on a surface level as it pertains to how he chooses to do things. We all know that if you open the borders and you let over 12 million people in here illegally, and what have you, that things have to be done. They know that. But in the same breath, how you go about addressing the issue, the sensitivity that you verbalize and you express,

all of those things play a role. I don't mind the dissent. I don't mind the dissent. You yourself have said you didn't like the way he did think sometimes, the way he does it. And that's what people have meant. But here's where you're making your mistake, and I'll give you the last word.

I don't mind the dissent. Okay. But the men's hockey team honored the country. They didn't honor Trump, but they were respectful when they got the invitation. Some of them will go and some of them wouldn't. Okay? But the women's team was not respectful to the office of the presidency. First thing, let me say this.

I completely agree with you about the importance of respecting the office. I don't want that to get lost in our back and forth. Respect the office is incredibly, incredibly important. You're right. But Bill, you have to respect what you know better than most. This is America. And in America, it's not just about freedom of speech. It's not just about freedom of expression.

It's the freedom to feel the way that you want to feel. We don't like, you may not like, how somebody has gone about doing things. But it is their right to do it. And I know you're not questioning their right to do it. you know they have a right to do it. What I'm saying to you is that if you believe that a person that's serving as our commander-in-chief is classless, he's devoid of decorum,

you wish he would act better and he really has riled you up and really, really turned you off. And you have an opportunity to express yourself in a fashion where you're engaging in what you would deem to be reciprocation. That might be what's behind it all. I'm not saying it's right.

that every woman on that team feels that way. I'm not, okay. I don't believe it. But what I'm saying, but what I'm trying to say to you, whether it's 12, 15, or 20 people, it's entirely plausible that they could feel that way. And you're right. And let them express it as individuals, but don't use the team banner. But you don't know what I'm saying to you as a guy covering sports.

You don't know that they were prohibited from doing that. You don't know if they made the decision to have a voice speak for the collective body as opposed to them wanting to speak individually. Some of them may, all of they may have preferred it this way. If that were the case, the team did not announce it, which would be very unusual. And I would say to you, I would say to you that in covering sports, when a team comes to that conclusion, more often than not, trust me, those players made the decision and deferred to them.

I've been covering sports for 30 years. A lot of times players are high behind the team. Players high behind the team. a lot. They really do, Bill. They really do. They are behind the team a lot. Seriously. Absolutely correct. All right, Stephen A, thanks for the lively debate. We really appreciate it. We'll see you soon.

No problem. You're listening to the NoSpin News Weekend Edition. Iran's up next. So Thursday, more negotiations. I have no idea what this is going to lead to. I know that it's incredibly complicated and dangerous to attack that country. And the USA is the one that has to do it. And the others, you know, I don't think they'll dissent, other than maybe China and Russia,

but there won't dissent on it. But boy, the specter of thousands of dead civilians, that kind of thing. So I want to get a take on how difficult this is. And joining us in Washington, now is Sina Tusi, as a senior fellow at the Center for International Policy, closely follows what is happening in Iran. I have gone over this with my audience, and we know the downside. The paramount question is, if the United States takes military action, which would be bombing. No troops on the ground. Is that enough to overthrow the mullahs, get them out of there, because the protests inside Iran are so intense? Hey, Bill, great to be on.

Yeah, that's, in many ways, the million-dollar question. I mean, the Iranian regime, this government that's been in power for almost 50 years now, is much more entrenched and multi-layered with its military institutions, with its security, institutions than, for example, Saddam Hussein's government was in 2003. And, you know, we just had a conflict with them last summer in the June war where in the middle of, you know, at that point, there was five rounds of negotiations between the U.S. and Iran and Israel launched a surprise attack last June. And in that surprise attack, it was very clear by what the Israelis targeted, that they kind of hoped that it would lead to the collapse of the regime. I mean, in their opening strike,

they took out a lot of the senior military figures. During that 12-day conflict, they tried to take out the political leadership. They struck targets like the national television headquarters. They struck evin prison where there's a lot of kind of political prisoners held. But, you know, we saw that there weren't protests or wasn't uprising that coincided with those protests. I mean, with that attack then. Now the calculation might be that, you know, the domestic situation has gotten worse in Iran. There have been these bigger protests trying to capitalize on that.

But I think it's a huge gamble. And the risks are very palpable. Like Iran can hit back. It hit back during the June war. It really drained a lot of American missile interceptors, like the fat missiles that we need in China. We need for the balance of power globally. So the risks would be high,

it could really spiral into a much bigger conflict in the Persian Gulf region. But President Trump has to do something because he's already made help is on the way statement. And he doesn't want to go down in history looking at like Barack Obama. in Syria with the red line, correct? Yeah, I think Trump, you know, he's already done a lot

when it comes to pressuring the Iranian government, you know, in an unprecedented way, more than any other U.S. president has since the 1979 Iranian revolution. You know, they've been under these maximum pressure sanctions. And Trump has set the whole time that he wants a deal, that, you know, the Obama-era deal was a weak deal and that he can get a better deal. and I think he is positioned,

he's positioned to get a stronger deal than Obama did. So his pressure, if he cashes in the kind of bargaining chip of this pressure and gets a stronger deal that really puts a lid on that nuclear program that it seems like we'll get other concessions from this Iranian government can even get Iranian or U.S. companies to invest in Iran and oil contracts, rare earth minerals, these are things that are apparently on the table. That would be a very strong deal. And Trump can very persuasively argue

that, you know, he was tough with the Iranians and he got a better deal. But to now, you know, in the midst of these threats and to have cornered himself into launching a big war against Iran, that that could ultimately be very counterproductive for American national security interests, you know, our troops in the region,

and just regional stability overall. Well, I can tell you, because I've talked to the president myself about the issue that he doesn't fear the government of Iran. They don't fear it. What they fear is, it's Ramadan, that dead Persian civilians will ignite the region because, of course, they'll be on

television, and that their instability and unintended consequences of all the civilian deaths would really might put things out of control. That is the fear. Give you the last word. Yeah, that's a big risk. I mean, President Trump has really, you know, hailed himself as a peacemaker. He got the Gaza ceasefire. There's some semblance of order returning to the region. We just had the Gaza Board of Peace meeting last week. There's this push for regional integration. So, you know, in the aftermath of all that, for us to enter a big war with Iran,

I think that risk of this having regional spillover, you know, Yemen can get involved, the Houthis can get involved. Iran has threatened to destabilize the Persian Gulf. You know, it's sitting right there. You know, it's got these ballistic missiles. It's got cruise missiles. It's got allies in various parts of the region. So I think that's a very real risk that should really call for sober assessment of the costs and benefits.

Yeah, they don't know what they're going to do yet. It's still on the fence. No decision has been made, although the Pentagon does have war plans. Those plans have been drawn up. Mr. Chithis, thanks very much. We'll check back in with you because we know you know a lot that's going on there. And it's very nice for you to help us out today. Thank you.

This is the NoSpin News Weekend Edition. And joining us now from Indianapolis is Ryan Jarmila. He is a senior director of government affairs at a law firm called Ice Miller, which is a humongous law firm, with offices in Indiana, New York, Pennsylvania, D.C., all over the place. The reason that we have, Mr. Jarmila, on the program, is because he did write or assist in President Trump's state of the Union. in his first term. So how active were you involved in putting those together? Yeah, I don't want you to brag, but give the audience an idea of what your participation was.

Sure. Well, thanks, Bill. Thanks for having me on. It was a great privilege to be on President Trump's speech writing team. I joined his team in 2016 during the election and served as a special assistant to him during his first two years of his first term. So I played a small role in it. Certainly not going to take credit for having to pen on the state of the union address for President Trump, but really enjoyed being a part of his team and playing a small supporting role in the crafting of the state of the union addresses.

All right. When you were working on it on a day-to-day level, so let's walk through it. How far ahead does the process start? It begins months before the address. I would assume that the speech the President will give tonight began in earnest before the holidays. And his team began crafting it and working on it through the holidays and has continued to refine it with input from every facet of the White House and through the cabinet agencies as they get to a final product. Now, Stephen Miller has a big role in writing most of the President's speeches. let's assume he's involved with this tonight. How many other people would be working with Miller?

Yes, so the president's speech writing team when I worked there, we had half a dozen, maybe eight writers and researchers that would really be involved in it. I'm sure Stephen Miller, whom I served with in Trump 45, will be a part of it as will Ross Worthing. Tim, Vince Haley, a lot of gentlemen who've worked for a president, Trump for a long time. Okay. So when does the president get involved? When does he start to dip in and discuss what he wants to say and read what's already been written? Yeah, I think once the

team has a product that's ready for the president's eyes, it'll go to the president and he'll do a read-through, make his edits, make his comments, and they'll continue to refine the product from there. You had mentioned earlier in the program, the Team USA, Men's High team coming to the state of the union addressed tonight. I'm sure a lot of your viewers saw the video of the president calling the team in the locker room right after that big win over the weekend. And Deputy Chief of Staff to the president, Dan Skavino, tweeted a photo of the president on the phone. It looked like to me he was rehearsing the state of the union address over the weekend.

Yeah, certainly that will be mentioned because he does want some Democrats not to applaud. So that's what he's looking for. He's had a lot of success. Yeah, I mean, listen, it's politics and that's what it is. So the president will praise the men's hockey team. All the Republicans will leap to their feet and applaud and go, yeah, yeah, yeah. And then the camera will pan. The Democrats are almost forced to stand and go, yeah, yeah. If they don't, it's going to hurt that party. And that's what the Republicans are hoping for those kinds of moments. Now, so you say that the

president doesn't really get involved until maybe a week or so before those speeches to be delivered. Would you say that was realistic? No, I would say once the team has put together a cohesive draft that's ready for the president, that they're ready to present to the president. When would a draft be available? A month? A couple of weeks before the speech. Yeah, a month, a couple weeks before the speech. Okay.

All right. So in that window from February 1st on, there'll be some kind of draft. Now, some presidents are more involved in others in editing. So Joe Biden wasn't involved at all. Zero. Okay? But Barack Obama, he rewrote a lot of what he would say. Where is Trump in that process?

I think that President Trump's very involved. You know, he's got a unique voice. He's been the most significant figure in American politics for a decade now. And I think he's very involved in the process. Well, you don't have to think, though. You were there, Ryan. Was he involved when you were there? Tell me what he did.

He's very involved. I imagine he'll be editing this speech right up until the time he leaves for Capitol Hill later this evening. Okay. When you say editing, he's taking his pen. He's crossing out some words. He's writing in some words. and they're retype. Does he do a prompter, teleprompter, rehearsal, as many presidents do? He does, yes. How many?

I would assume he'd go through it. They would go through a full rehearsal two or three times. Because it's going to be at least 90 minutes. I mean, that's a lot of time. I assume that's what he's doing right now, is that he's running through the teleprompter. And, you know, getting his rhythm down. Now, I don't use a teleprompter. I'm the only anchor man in a world. It doesn't, I think, national. But I did when I was at Fox. I used a teleprompter. And you don't want to become too dependent on the words, like the Biden stare into the, you don't want to do that. You want to have it fresh and vibrant. And Trump goes off script a lot, correct? That's correct.

Did you guys... When he comes to the podium tonight, he'll be very familiar with the text, and he'll feel very comfortable going in and out of the prepared text. Okay. Final question for you. When the president signs off on the whole thing, the rehearsals are over, prompter, everything is done. Okay. How long does he have? And you're just like your experience now.

It's 9 o'clock he goes up. Is he done at 6? Does he have a little supper? Does he take a nap? What happens in that period? Yeah, I think probably right before dinner, then they'll have the speech buttoned up right before he goes off to Capitol Hill. Okay.

When you say you think you were there, Ryan, so you know logistically how it works. So everything you said I can take to the bank, correct? Absolutely. All right. All right, Ryan. Thanks very much for helping us out. We appreciate it. And we'll talk again, I hope. You're listening to the No Spin News weekend edition. The midterm election is, as I said, a much more contained than a presidential election. But what Trump did last night was he put down a marker.

no matter how you look at Republicans, and he's talking to independent voters now, they're worse. So we gave you a tax cut, they want to raise taxes. We're protecting Americans from illegal alien criminals. They don't want to do that. On and on and on, one after the other, after the other. That will be the theme for the next eight months. And that is the memo.

All right, let's get some reaction from two very smart guys. First, Doug Schoen, joins us from Miami, a Democrat political strategist. Where am I going wrong here, Doug? Bill, I don't think you're going wrong if I can just add that it's going to be hard to change the dialogue in the extent and to the degree you're estimating in light of public opinion, which now strongly favors the Democrats largely because of the affordability. crisis, which in the 2025 elections proved to be paramount. But where you're right is that Trump's performance was a virtuoso one.

He dominated the dialogue. You did accurately describe what the themes will be of the midterm. I just am skeptical whether there's enough juice in the arguments to hold the House. The Senate, I think, is more likely than not to stay in the Republican. hands. The House, I think, is more likely than not to go Democratic. Well, the polls are going to shift in Trump's favor big time in the next two weeks. You wait and see. Whether it lasts is the big question, though.

But remember now, you've got tax refunds coming up, okay? So that's going to juice the economy. Trump is serious about getting the health care insuring costs down. Democrats will stand in the way of that. not going to support that. So a lot of things are going to happen. You're going to have Iran come to a head in the next two weeks, and that probably will go America's way, whether it's a treaty or whether it's military action. So right now, you couldn't deny, unless you were, you know, dishonest working in the national corporate media. Couldn't

deny that Trump changed the momentum in the country. I don't question that at all. Don't question that at all, Bill. But in midterm elections, and we've discussed this before, those that are most likely to vote are those that are most angry. And right now, that is Democrats and independents who are, for a variety of reasons, frustrated with Trump because of overreaching by ICE and the continued issue with prices.

So I'm not disputing anything you're saying. I'm just not sure it's going to last. Okay. Well, you know, what most anchorman say is we'll see. I would fire any anchorman who said that if I were the boss. It's not my job is to pinpoint what's happening, not say we'll see. A five-year-old can say that. What is likely to happen is that the Republicans are going to go out and say, these people running against me are radical leftists, even if they're not, they'll tag them, okay?

And they are dangerous people. For the uninformed voter and are a lot of them, that is a very very. very effective way to campaign. Bill, where I think you're right is the Republicans have a tough time making an argument that they have performed well enough to deserve to hold both houses. Where their argument is stronger, as you're suggesting, is on a comparison or a contrast with my party, the Democrats, which have moved so far to the left that they're unimaginable from the party I joined many,

many years ago. Yeah, they're demonized. So who's the leader of your party, Doug? No idea. AOC, Bernie said. Does it disturb you? There's no leader? The idea that AOC could beat Schumer, I'm not going to cry crocodile tears for him,

but candidly, Bill, she is a competitive presidential candidate against people like Gavin Newsom. And that is extraordinary, just extraordinary, that somebody on the far left with Bernie Sanders in premature has a theoretical chance and a practical chance of getting the Democratic nomination, having been in the House for, I think, what, four terms now with a prior work record that was largely in the hospitality industry. Well, let me, let me soothe your mind, Doug. is too dumb to be elected president. Well, she could get the nomination, and that would be very scary. I don't think so.

Newsom would beat her in a debate. Newsom is smarter than she is. I mean, I don't think it would be close. I don't think it would be close. Well, she gets 40 percent or gets, you know, three and ten, four in ten Democrats, sympathizing with her. That makes winning any election for the Democrats far more difficult, regardless of who's nominated. That to me is a devastating blow to my party.

So I was on Hannity's radio program today, and Hannity was making the argument that the Republicans are going to swamp the Democrats, and we have that on Bill O'Reilly.com. And I don't concur. I say what's going to hurt the Democrats is themselves, the 20, percent, maybe 22 or three, that are radical left. And the rest of the Democratic Party isn't radical left, but because of the money flow, yeah, because of the money flow, the radicals call the shots. And AOC is a radical. So if only 22 percent of Democrats are radical, and the rest of the country doesn't want radicals, AOC has no.

no chance for the presidency. But in a Democratic primary among actual voters, the far left is about 40 to 45%. Those that turnout and low turnout primaries donate money. There wouldn't be low turnout, though. If you get somebody that radical, everything is going to work. Look, Bernie Sanders did pretty darn well for at least two presidential races. Hillary stole one from him, and he came pretty darn close in, 2020.

That's because people hate Hillary. Newsom is a very slick campaign. They weren't getting Hillary. They were voting for Bernie because Joe Biden had made a deal with Clyburn yet to get No, I got it. I got the inner workings, but Sanders never had a chance in my opinion. All right, Doug, always a pleasure. Thank you for helping us out.

Very good conversation. This is the No Spin News Weekend Edition. When you see your opposition, it doesn't matter whether it's politics or sports or chess or whatever. When you see your opponent get unhinged, you know you've won. And this is what happened last night. Go. Where are my gloves? Come on, heat.

any day now. Winter is hard, but your groceries don't have to be. This winter, stay warm. Tap the banner to order your groceries online at voila.ca. Enjoy in-store prices without leaving your home. You'll find the same regular prices online as in-store. Many promotions are available both in-store and online, though some may vary. Searchlight Pictures presents in the blink of an eye on Hulu on Disney Plus,

a sweeping science fiction drama spanning the stone age, present day and the distant future, about the essence of what it means to be human, regardless of our place in history. The film is directed by Oscar-winning filmmaker Andrew Stanton and stars Rashida Jones, Kate McKinnon, and David Diggs. Stream in the blink of an eye now only on Hulu-on Disney Plus. Sign up at Disneyplus.com. We have a nut job wannabe king who's doing everything he can to censor opinions he doesn't

want to hear. He has his goons arresting, incarcerating, and killing American citizens. funding for cancer research at children's hospitals while he rakes in literally billions of dollars for himself and his family he's coming after our right to vote you know do you think that helps Jim you think what you're doing helps your party my god all right joining us now from Miami same place Doug was because these guys are not tough enough to take the weather in the Northeast. Shone and Buck Sexton, who has a bookout, manufacturing delusion. The Left uses brainwashing indoctrination propaganda against you. You know, he is on the radio with the Clay and Buck

program, which I do occasionally. So, Sexton, where am I going wrong? Where's Shone going wrong? What are we missing here? Well, missing with what? I mean, I think that the Democrats are completely insane. I think that Jimmy Kimmel and what they're presenting to the American people is an alternative reality, dare I say, a delusion. I mean, you mentioned my book and Bill. One thing I've learned from doing the research of this is that the problem is fitting in all of the delusions. The problem is getting all of the unreality onto the page that we're forced to live in day in and day out. But I didn't just want to make this a screed about what's going on today, although certainly we get into in the book. I get into the transgender madness, the BLM madness, COVID.

Obviously, it's not a COVID book, but there's some reflection on the craziness that happened during COVID. But I wanted to go back to some of the people who are the, honestly, the biggest experts of the last hundred years in the fields of psychiatry, of coercion, of psychological operations. and look at how do people in totalitarian states, where this really became something of an evil art form, how do they seize minds? And what I kept coming into, Bill, was even the great experts, people like Juist Mirlu,

who was a Dutch American psychiatrist, who was fighting against the Nazis, then joined the Dutch army in exile during World War II, and was doing psychological operations for the British. He said, look, I've studied the Nazis, I've debriefed some of the worst of the SS. How they control minds involves a lot of force, a lot of violence, but there are pathways that are similar to even Western countries

and the left and the totalitarian impulse. And I think people need to understand that. So I unpack some of those tactics and get into some of the realities of how mass mind control can be achieved without bayonets up against everybody's throat. And that's something that we're certainly seeing in this country. But it happens on both sides. There are right-wing cooks, too. But the left has perfected it here with the tremendous help of the corporate media,

which if you watched the State of the Union, and I always do this, I whipped on CNN as soon as it was over. So I know what Fox is going to say. And then they already started on Epstein. Already started everything, boom. They couldn't, they didn't have any kind of defense against Trump speech because it was effective. So they right away try to divert. And that's one of the things in your book.

And I did read your book. To create delusion in people's minds, you've got to first sweep reality away. Yes. Real life has to leave. Right. Real life has to leave the building. And that's much easier in totalitarian, as you just said, than in a free country. So I don't think that's ever going to happen here on a mass level, mass delusion.

But when you saw last night the traps that the Republican Party laid for the Democrats, I was stunned the Democrats weren't prepared for those traps. How did you see it? Well, no, I think, Bill, that the Democrats got, got what they deserved and got what needed to be said when Trump just called them out for being crazy. I mean, this party, and I think there's a number of reasons why it has gone in this direction, but you mentioned the corporate media control they had, and most notably until Elon's purchase of X and the breakthrough of the second Trump administration of social media in a whole range of ways,

the stranglehold they had over information online, I think created a left that was increasingly authoritarian. And I would, if I could, push back just a little bit on we won't have mass delusion in America. I mean, I would argue that the shutting down of schools and the double masking while you were sitting at your chair, but not while you were getting up to go to the bathroom at the restaurant, but not while you were sitting in your chair and getting six shots and the genuflection of I'm so happy I got COVID, but I'm vaccinated, all these things. I mean, that was a mass delusion that we were going through. But remember, that wasn't a partisan delusion.

that Donald Trump was president, and that Fauci, who was a villain in your book, worked for Trump. So it wasn't that there was just one party pushing it. The whole federal government kind of coalesced around these erroneous things, and many of them were, the social distancing, the mask, which didn't provide any protection. But now you've got a radical movement in the... this country that controls the Democratic Party. I don't see that spreading much more than it has. Go ahead. So let me give you an example of where I think it spreads. And to be clear, now we can talk about, well, what's a mass delusion? I mean, when we're saying mass, are we talking about

80% of the country? Are we talking about 10 million people or a million people or even a few 100,000 people who believe something and then can have enormous effect on the rest of the country. An example of this would be the transgender madness. Now, we could say, okay, well, is that really a mass delusion because only 20% of the country based on a lot of the polls really buys into this stuff. But in manufacturing delusion, I get into, we'll hold on a second. It's not just the people in the mass. It's also the institutions, right? It's the old seizing of the telegraph office paradigm. It's Who's parroting this stuff in the media? Who has something that I talk about in the book and manufacturing delusion, the fire hose of falsehood at their disposal who can just inundate, can flood the zone with those lies.

So even if you don't have the numbers, and Bill, as you know, the Bolsheviks were never the majority in Russia. Neither were the Nazis. Nazi, Hitler never got a faction among. Right. Right. A faction among factions. And so. Look, you were, and one of the fascinating things.

about your book, Buck, is that Buck did work for the CIA, and he went to these places, and he saw the delusion that was growing. But in America, we don't have, you either see it my way or you're going to get the hell beat out of you by the SA thugs. That's not happening here. But I don't want to argue that. What I want to argue is my, I think the Democratic Party is almost destroying itself at this point. Put Trump and the Republicans aside. Just concentrate on what's happening within the Democratic Party, the party of JFK, who was really the last true Democrat. Carter was, and Carter had no idea what he was.

Barack Obama was pretty left. Kennedy was not close to being Barack Obama. But now the radicals control the Democratic Party, which I think is. going to lead to the demise of that party. But I don't know if it's going to happen in November. Last word. Bill, in manufacturing delusion, I get into a couple of the tactics that are essential to both, not just the totalitarian society when they have the gulags and they have the trunchons and the thugs,

but can be used in a propagandistic way to control people in a society like our own. And it's confusion and degradation. And when you see those, those are two traits, two very important things that experts have identified. When you see the way that Democrats try to confuse issues as well as confuse their followers, to degrade people by lying to their faces or forcing them to be a part of a lie, a whole range of issues, this is sort of a self-reinforcing cycle where they can't self-correct. And I think that's what you're identifying. You say, what happened to the party of JFK?

it keeps getting worse because their strategies rely on lying to people, on living by life. And their goals are much different. Their goals are to tear down traditional America, whereas Kennedy was not close to that. All right, Buck, the book is manufacturing delusioning. Get it anywhere. We really appreciate it. Buck, thanks for having me on your radio program as well. And we'll talk again soon.

Thank you. Thank you for listening to the NoSpin News Weekend Edition. To watch the full episodes of the No Spin News, visit Bill O'Reilly.com and sign up to become a premium or concierge member. That's Bill O'Reilly.com. Sign up and start watching today.